Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> UK LIVING (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o05303 (19 February 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o05303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o5303, [2003] UKIntelP o05303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
UK LIVING (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o05303 (19 February 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o05303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/053/03
- Decision date
- 19 February 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr David Kitchin QC
- Mark
- UK LIVING
- Classes
- 09, 16, 28, 38, 41
- Applicants/Respondents
- Flextech Television Limited
- Opponents/Appellants
- I.P.C. Magazines Limited
- Opposition
- Appeal to the Appointed Person in Opposition Proceedings
Result
Appeal partially successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Reversal of the Hearing Officer’s findings in respect of likelihood of confusion.
- 2. Comparison of goods/services “masthead publishing” : increasingly common
- 3. Costs in proceedings before the Appointed Person.
Summary
At first instances (see BL BL O/237/02) the Hearing Officer had found no likelihood of confusion, even where the goods were identical, in the clash between the applicants’ mark UK Living and the opponents’ mark LIVING. The appellants confined their opposition to goods in Classes 9 and 16 and services in Class 41. Having reviewed the matter the Appointed Person came to the view that the Hearing Officer had fallen into error in his assessment of the marks.
From this he went on to consider the consequences of this finding on the specification of goods and services. Having done so he found the appeal successful in relation to some of the goods in Classes 9 and 16; but he dismissed the appeal in relation to Class 41.
In view of the partial success of both sides, and in view of the reduction in the scope of the appeal, the Appointed Person directed that the original costs order be set aside, and he made no order as to costs in respect of the appeal.